India’s War On Terror Moves To Myanmar

India conducted a special forces operation against Myanmar-based terrorists responsible for a recent attack.

Showing its renewed resolution in combating all forms of terrorism, India recently launched a precision operation against Myanmar-based terrorists, killing over 100 of them. The operation was in response to a surprise ambush earlier this month that killed 18 soldiers in the Northeastern state of Manipur. This corner of the country has long been a hotbed of separatism and terrorist activity, and the various fighting groups active in the area have occasionally taken advantage of their neighbor’s internal woes to exploit it as a base of operations. In fact, there’s an implicit alliance between them and the Myanmar rebels, as the anti-India groups wouldn’t be able to use their counterpart’s territory without their consent.

India is actively looking to expand its influence in Southeast Asia via its invigorated Act East policy, but it can’t properly proceed until the Northeast is pacified and Myanmar is stabilized. Ironically, by targeting Myanmar-based terrorists, India might unwittingly perpetuate the same never-ending cycle of destabilization that it had initially sought to avoid.

Umbrella Separatism

The National Socialist Council of Nagaland-Khaplang (NSCN-K) was behind the unexpected attack in Manipur, but they’re actually part of a larger and newly created umbrella organization of terrorists called the United Liberation Front Of West South East Asia (UNLFW). This group brings together three of the most dangerous separatist movements in India’s Northeast – the National Liberation Front of Assam (NLFA), the National Democratic Front of Bodoland (NDFB), and the just-mentioned Naga group, each of which wants to violently carve their own independent nation-state out of the Republic of India and is categorized as a terrorist group by New Delhi. S. S. Khaplang, the founder of the NSCN-K, is reportedly the ringleader of the UNLFW, and it was allegedly his idea to create the organization (the third of its kind).

This union of separatists-terrorists is exceptionally dangerous for India, since it shows that its disparate groups (some of whom have overlapping territorial claims on the other, as is the case with the Assamese and Bodo) can put their conflicts aside for the time being and work together in achieving their grand goal of separatism via terrorism. New Delhi’s military response to the UNLFW shows that it understands the threat that the nexus of unified separatist-terrorist movements, ungovernable border-region safe havens, and allied foreign rebel organizations poses to its sovereignty and security, but most importantly, it also demonstrates just how serious India is about redirecting its strategic focus towards the gates of Southeast Asia.

More ASEAN, Less Pakistan

Up until now, India’s security doctrine has been dominated by Pakistan, but its latest military moves in Myanmar are indicative of a strategic shift. Of course, Islamabad will perpetually remain as New Delhi’s primary security consideration, but with both Pakistan and India slated to join the SCO next month, it’s expected that a sort of ‘cold peace’ may finally settle in between them. This is despite the Indian Defense Minister hinting that the Myanmar operation could be repeated against Pakistan-based terrorists in the future, and Pakistan’s Interior Minister forcefully proclaiming that “Pakistan is not Myanmar” in response. Such statements should be seen as nothing more than grand posturing by both sides, as it’s extremely unlikely either of them would risk a conventional (and possibly, nuclear) war at this time.

The main reason for this is the China factor, since Beijing wants to safeguard its $46 billion Pakistan-China Economic Corridor project while New Delhi wants to focus is strategic attention on competing with China in its own Southeast Asian backyard (a symmetrical response to China’s ‘String of Pearls’ inroads in the Indian Ocean). In the forthcoming expanded SCO framework, Russia can help restrain India against Pakistan, while China can do the same for Pakistan against India, thus mitigating bilateral tension between the two South Asian antagonists and enabling both to concentrate on their respective economic visions (Pakistani integration with China, Indian integration with ASEAN) instead of mutually assured destruction.

India has just upgraded its Look East policy to one of Act East, which embodies an unwavering commitment to expanding its full-spectrum partnerships in that direction. While the inauguration of a BCIM trade corridor between Bangladesh, China, India, and Myanmar is the best-case, all-win scenario, it seems more likely that India will try to exclude China from this format and spearhead its own bilateral trade relations with the other two members. Modi’s breakthrough visit to Bangladesh essentially achieves this and helps strengthen New Delhi’s position vis-à-vis securing and developing the Northeast. As regards Myanmar, India wants to use its territory as a connecting bridge between it and the rest of mainland ASEAN, seeking to build a highway from Northeast India to Thailand and physically link its gargantuan economy more closely with the dynamic trade bloc. In order to fulfill this vision, however, India needs to simultaneously secure its Northeast and stabilize Myanmar, but it may have unintentionally exacerbated the latter’s difficulties through its supposed unilateral intervention in achieving the former.

Whacking A Hornet’s Nest

India claims its operation was conducted in Myanmar, with sources conflicting over whether Naypyidaw was informed before or after, but its counterparts allege that no such mission ever took place in their country, and was instead carried out in India’s own border region. No matter what the truth really is, Myanmar’s statements indicate that it is trying to carefully tread the tenuous truce that’s been keeping the country relatively stable in the run-up to the November general elections, and the NSCN-K just happens to be one of the many rebel signatories to that agreement. While Naypyidaw has a deep-seated interest in rooting out all rebel forces (it’s been fighting for over 60 years to do just that), it’s reluctant to rock the boat and risk a full-fledged resumption of civil war at this decisive moment, all for the sake of satisfying India in eliminating one of its enemies, which, it must be underlined, is a truce signatory preserving the very fragile peace.

Myanmar’s fear is that the NSCN-K could call upon its network of rebel alliances within the country to help defend it against any attack by the government, as not only would the military’s moves be a violation of the ceasefire, but the other rebel groups nesting in the staging area also stand to lose if Naypyidaw reestablishes control over the region (perhaps with Indian support). On the Indian side of things, the NSCN-K could activate its umbrella terrorist network inside the Northeast to wage a prolonged ethnic-based terrorist campaign, the effect of which would be to stunt New Delhi’s shift to ASEAN and embroil it in a dirty domestic war. Thus, India is mired in a strategic Catch-22, whereby its Act East policy dictates the need to secure the Northeast and stabilize Myanmar, but fulfilling the former comes at the expense of the latter, which circularly negates any prior achievements through the expected explosion of violence and refugee flows. New Delhi is betting that none of this will transpire, but given the circumstances, it’s a risky gamble to make, no matter India’s legitimate right in responding to terror.

The Essential Saker II: Civilizational Choices and Geopolitics / The Russian challenge to the hegemony of the AngloZionist Empire

Leave a Reply

Leave a Reply

Click here to get more info on formatting

(1) Leave the name field empty if you want to post as Anonymous. It's preferable that you choose a name so it becomes clear who said what. E-mail address is not mandatory either. The website automatically checks for spam. Please refer to our moderation policies for more details. We check to make sure that no comment is mistakenly marked as spam. This takes time and effort, so please be patient until your comment appears. Thanks.

(2) 10 replies to a comment are the maximum.

(3) Here are formating examples which you can use in your writing:
<b>bold text</b> results in bold text
<i>italic text</i> results in italic text
(You can also combine two formating tags with each other, for example to get bold-italic text.)
<em>emphasized text</em> results in emphasized text
<strong>strong text</strong> results in strong text
<q>a quote text</q> results in a quote text (quotation marks are added automatically)
<cite>a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited</cite> results in:a phrase or a block of text that needs to be cited
<blockquote>a heavier version of quoting a block of text...</blockquote> results in:

a heavier version of quoting a block of text that can span several lines. Use these possibilities appropriately. They are meant to help you create and follow the discussions in a better way. They can assist in grasping the content value of a comment more quickly.

and last but not least:
<a href=''http://link-address.com''>Name of your link</a> results in Name of your link

(4)No need to use this special character in between paragraphs:&nbsp;You do not need it anymore. Just write as you like and your paragraphs will be separated.The "Live Preview" appears automatically when you start typing below the text area and it will show you how your comment will look like before you send it.

(5) If you now think that this is too confusing then just ignore the code above and write as you like.

I would agree with that it is a pretty good article; especially the revelation that the terrorist movements have unified under one umbrella, that’s something the infantile and overly emotional Indian Media seems to not have grasped.

However, the idea that Russia could restrain India is unrealistic: during the 1971 war the much more powerful Soviet Union couldn’t restrain a then relatively weaker India (than today’s India) from launching a cruise missile attack on Karachi harbor. The Soviets clearly read the riot-act to the Indians not to use those soviet-supplied missiles, but the Indians correctly ignored the warning and used their destroyers to tow their Russian built missile corvettes to within range of Karachi and destroyed Pakistans only port. India is not about to take orders from anyone nor do I think Putin is interested in taking on such a task. Russia can advise India, but they cannot restrain India.

Also, the idea that China can restrain Pakistan is equally unrealistic. If the United States who is still much more powerful than China and far more influential in Pakistan (where they get away with droning pakistani citizens at will), can’t restrain Pakistan from launching terrorist attacks against India, then China stands no chance. Besides why would India substitute Western leverage overage over anti indian terrorists for those moderated by Beijing? And then we have the factual reality that China can’t even get Pakistan to stop Pakistani originated terrorism against itself, so what could they possible do for India.

Changing “India and Myanmar” to “France and Tunisia” this article could have appeared in the NYT when France laid waste to a Tunisian town in 1958 or when the S. Vietnam army carried out raids into Laos in the 60’s and 70’s. The NYT would have praised the objectives of the “anti-terrorist” forces, while possibly hinting that there might be complications.

In wartime, it’s understandable to proclaim friendly neutrality when an ally misbehaves. However, it’s unwise to cheer on the attack against small oppressed nations which are fighting for their survival. If the Nagas and Assamese are to be called terrorists, then so are Novorossiyans.

The ideology of the Indian regime is much closer to Kiev than to Moscow; as for Dehli’s record of terror against minorities, all over India, it’s even worse than that of Kiev towards rebels and dissenters.

Is Russia part of the west? Is China? Neither of these countries has condemned India either (in the contrary in the case of Russia). Yet according to your logic then Russia and China must be excusing India’s sins.

Like everything else in your posting you got the historical record wrong too: it was the British that forcibly incorporated the Nagas in series of bloody massacres between 1839-1850; even after that there was back and forth attacks between the Nagas and the oppressive and thieving British authorities until 1865, after which the Brtish formalized their rule.

In 1946 the Nagas sent a memorandum asking to be part of the Indian Union as a separate state. What now? More opinions not backed by any facts?

Myanmar is not condemned by the West either, and it’s dirt poor; actually, it’s even worse than India in its treatment of minorities, both Christians and Muslims. Any state can get the democratic stamp of approval from the West, as long as they run a fake election and don’t vote with Russia at the UN.

Please tells how well China treats its minorities. Do you have the ethical courage to do so?

Also since you’re so quick to condemn others without even substantiating your points, how do the people in your country treat minorities? In order for you to be considered objective it would interesting to see if you as condemning of the countries you feel affinity towards as you are in your accusations against the Indians.

In case you disagree with me, here is how you treat “your” people in North East. Let them have their independence since you treat them inhumanly any way. Pretty pathetic nation if you ask me:
Women Rage Against ‘Rape’ in Northeast India: “Indian Army rape us” and “Indian Army takes our flesh.”http://www.commondreams.org/headlines04/0719-03.htm

That’s completely untrue Myanmar is regularly pilloried by the Western MSM for its human rights record. Another example of an opinion rather than a fact. The constant harping about the plight of the Rohingyas recently is a factual example of your assertion being wrong. In fact, Andrew Korybko wrote an article on on it within the last 2 weeks right here on this blog.

So your view about the empire laying off countries that don’t vote against it at the UN is inconsistent with facts. Including when it comes to India which has refused sanctions against Iran and has voted in support of Russia on the Ukraine issue at the UN consistently. India’s support of Russia at the UN, imcreasimg military and trade ties with Russia and support of Syria directly contradicts your conclusion.

You are wrong, India did not annex the nagas they were part of the Indian union from the day the Indians through British out. It was the British in the 19th Century that used force to absorb the Naga into British India during the 19th century.

So it comes as no surprise that the rest of your conclusions regarding India are erroneous too, since they’re based on an provably incorrect belief of how the Nagas became part of the Indian Union.

Another ignorance based comment using hyperbole and exaggeration to slander people/countries and ethnicities you dislike. Where are your facts? You’re entitled to your opinions, even if they’re odious, but where are the facts to back up your assertions? Nowhere. Of course your comments have no significance to the people that live in India. The country is too large to care about what they consider sour grapes.

Opining that Ideology of Delhi is closer to Kiev than Moscow is beyond slanderous, it’s laughable. You’re going to be increasing frustrated in the coming years as India continues to progress and your own theories regarding that country get disproven even to you.

Would you have the guts to make the same claims against China in Tibet and in Uigurlang (xinjiang). I doubt it.

(a) The status of Ukraine resembles exactly that of Pakistan, not of India. Pakistan, Israel, Saudi Arabia, Ukraine are all states artificially created by western imperialism and having no inner legitimacy of their own. Ukraine is a pawn of the west, India, even with the present benighted govt holding office in Delhi is not..
(b) True, there are terrible human rights situations in India’s Northeast. But a large measure of autonomy adequately addresses the issue of self-determination.Indian Govt has repeatedly been willing to negotiate with Northeast militant groups. At present, the problems are most serious in Manipur and Nagaland, 2 out of the “seven sisters” , or 7 states that compose the Northeast. In Mizoram, the struggle was settled in 1977, and the leader of the insurrection, Laldenga became the state’s Chief Minister. Arunachal Pradesh, (claimed by China), has generally been peaceful and the local tribes are very different from each other and also numerically small. Assam is a large state with many different communities. These are at loggerheads with each other and resolving them into a common identity is a work in process with the petri dish frequently spilling its contents because of political opportunism and grandstanding. Democratic traditions are quite entrenched in India over the last 7 decades of stability, and electoral competition is a major factor in fostering separatism.Even in Nagaland, there is a ceasefire with the main group, the state govt is run by Naga people. And all over India, there has been a de facto practice of the govt allowing parrallel govt by rebellious groups in their strongholds.
(c) True, autonomy in Indian states could be greater, but it is worth noting that a crucial area like land is a state subject.s.Central govt cannot build “settlements” like in Palestine or otherwise change the demographics
(d) Western imperialism will always play the politics of ethnic minorities . This helps no-one. Look at East Timor. True, Indonesia had massacred a large part of the population. But, that was by a western-backed military dictator. If Indonesia can throw the military rascals out in a convincing manner, East Timor could have remained with Indo.Today, it is virtually an Australian colony.
(e) Northeast India people are joining with other Indians, particularly, the oppressed sections and fighting together .

You seem to mistake the US supporting Israel or India.. Israel controls the US.. And Israel was the only country that helped it when it was needed.. All middle eastern countries supported Pakistan and so did all the Muslim countries and the US and China. Russia remained neutral. In such a situation I would wholeheartedly say fuk gaza! They were supporting Pakistan shell Indian villages.
And also India is one of the few countries which maintain a PLO mission and diplomatic office. I am surprised they do so.. Because the Palestinians support Pakistan against India, yet want support of India against Israel.. While Israel is the only country supporting India. Yet India does maintain a balance in relations with those who send money, funds and arms to terrorists who attack India and threaten its very survival… The Saudi’s funded Pakistani nuclear weapons program.

Its like living in a nest of vipers.. How the Indians do it is beyond me. And 250 mil Muslims in India. Which is more than any other country. All the other Muslims are trying to kill Indian Muslims as well. Dealing with the US would be far far easier and that’s one nest of snakes. We hate Israel because of its control of US/UK politics.. Nothing else.. nutyahoo don’t make it easier to like them either.. But you cant just ignore the head choppers as being the good guys here.

You nailed it perfectly. Including your views on Gaza/Palestine. People who help the Palestinians get screwed by them time and time again. I have seen this personally on multiple occasions.

Even publicly they betray their benefactors. Look at how they tried to take over Jordan after Jordan gave then refuge. Look at how they turned Lebanon upside down when the PLO was given refuge there. In fact, look at Syria’s experience; the Assad govt had steadfastly supported the Palestinians, even when the Saudis were willing to sell out the Palestinian cause, how did the PLO and Hamas respond? They respnded by supporting the current Syrian insurgency against the Syrian govt. The same applies to Palestian treachery towards Hezbollah, (who steadfastly supported the Palestinians): hezbollah has been betrayed by the main Palestinian political bodies during this current Syrian destabilization campaign.

I totally agree with you, if Israel is willing to work with India, exchange technological know-how (2-way) why should India spurn them? Russia and China both do business with Israel, yet I see no conspiracy theory based accusations by some of the more creative commenters here against those 2 countries. Russia even sells military hardware to Israel (for example Illyushin jets, which are converted into Israeli AWACS platforms). China buys military equipment and intelligence gear from Israel. China also freely sells military grade alloys and parts to Israel (so does Russia). Where are the howling criticisms of theses countries now from those here that make conspiratorial accusations here about an Israeli-Indian axis? There are none, because the real agenda of these individuals is not based on principle but animus.

Your comment about Indian Muslims is right of the mark too. Their interests are regularly betrayed by Sunni Muslims outside of India.

When you say “how to the Indians do it [bare it] is beyond me”, you have again perfectly understood our point of view and our thining patience. To put it bluntly, we aren’t going bare it anymore: you will see India respond far more forcefully going forward than in the past (as Andrew Korybko’s preamble poinyted out in this article). India is going to take action against people and entities that continue to act against its interests, precisely in the same manner China does.

India’s chances of stabilizing the NorthEast might be a great deal better if it would stop trying to displace hundreds of thousands of Indigenous peoples in order to exploit the resources of the North East.

The terrorists are actually sponsored by Uncle Sam. Terrorism is a lever that is used by Sammy to pressure India in forcing an Asia trade deal, that does not include China. Besides, terrorism is also an instrument that is used to those opposing the dollar hegemony. In fact most of the terrorists are U S trained black ops teams. They call themselves by many names including ISIS. The option is very limited. Meet force with force !

Then we have the useful idiots in the Indiaphobic/India hater crowd who are tacitly or inadvertently supporting anglosphere intelligence agencies in destabilizing India by regurgitating the same unsubstantiated garbage the BBC put out in the 1970s, 1980s and 1990s about the Northeastern Insurgencies and their fake concern about alleged (and real) Indian suppression of human rights.

The terrorist movements in India’s Northeast are funded, armed and supported by external agencies to use as pressure points on India (if the govt displeases the International Order).

Avarachans posting is right on point too. He saved me typing.

As for the naive and well meaning who think Arundhati is sincere, you’ll soon find out how wrong you really are if you examine her full track record. In lieu of that it would be wise to remember she’s the darling of the BBC and the Western Liberal media that excoriates Russia, that should tell something.

I would like to remind all of the India-hating commenters of a few facts.

1) India has never used air power against insurgents within India. Even though air strikes would reduce Indian Army casualties, the Indian government refuses to authorize them. Why? There’s too much of a risk of civilian casualties.

2) India’s anti-insurgent operations are not aimed at the civilian population at large. (In fact, Indian operations are designed to split the insurgents from the civilian population.) The reality is that most of the insurgents are criminals involved in drug trafficking, human trafficking, weapons smuggling, extortion, etc.

People do have legitimate grievances with the Indian government, but the Indian government has been quite patient over the years. For instance, one of the finest universities in India is NEHU, which is located in the heart of the North-East. I visited NEHU myself in 2012. I have friends who are Ph.D. students there.

http://nitinagokhale.blogspot.com/
(The author is a national security analyst and a long-time north-east watcher, having spent 23 years living and reporting from that region between 1983 and 2006. He has also had the opportunity to walk across into Myanmar with rebel groups and visit their camps in those years.)

Arundhati Roy, in Walking with the Comrades, would disagree with your second point. As for your first, do you not consider Kashmir to be within India?

This has nothing to do with “India-hating”, just as criticisms of US policy isn’t “America bashing” or criticism of the Apartheid State “antisemitism”. Those are lazy labels employed by tribalists incapable of seeing the fleck in their own eye but ranting about the log in their neighbors. One should recognize the shortcomings of their country in order to correct and make it better. India is a wonderful country with an incredible history, but is seemingly as incapable as the US in dealing with disenfranchised populations.

“India is a wonderful country with an incredible history, but is seemingly as incapable as the US in dealing with disenfranchised populations.”

The Khalistani insurgency has been defeated. The cities of Jammu and Kashmir are now safer than most cities in the U.S. I mean no offense, but you don’t know what you’re talking about.

Please read the articles I’ve referenced in the other comments. Thank you.

By the way, Arundhati Roy is not a credible commentator regarding Indian national-security issues. In India, she is known as a “limousine liberal”: one who has made a comfortable living criticizing the Indian state for Western audiences. The people who actually have to live through the insurgencies Ms. Roy sympathizes with are not enamored by her.http://archive.indianexpress.com/news/the-real-enemies/400963/

India does not use bombing strategies in its normal dealings with restive minorities, because the Indian military is very competent; they know that bombing the jungle gets no results and is too expensive–for a regime without the advantage of printing the world’s reserve currency.

Much cheaper to send in police and infantry recruited from another national minority. They burn down the villages; the minorities disappear, and the regime’s problems are gone–for a while.

I also thank Mr. Avarachan for introducing us to the very valuable blog of Mr. Gochale, who says that North-East insurgents are sponsored by China.

Also, you must not be aware that the trans-national jihad in Kashmir in the 1990’s was crushed in large measure due to local Kashmiri Muslim police officers. Yes, the Indian Army did back them up, but the first line of defense was the local Kashmiri police. I recommend that you read this interview with Shaheeda Parveen, a Kashmiri Muslim female police offer.http://pravintalan.blogspot.in/2009/02/you-hesitate-before-firing-that-first.html
Thank you.

I admit that I am not very competent to discuss Indian affairs. I also know that in every nationalist conflict, both sides do wrong, and that, however brutal and corrupt a regime may be, some minority people will be found to support it.

However, by and large, I know that autonomy-seeking minorities are not well treated in most countries; as a result, independence movements arise.

Self-determination means that minorities have the right to independence, provided
a. they have not shown intent to oppress their own minorities
b. their movements were not created by foreign powers.

The Empire is in the war business, needs conflict, and all over the world supports states against autonomy or independence movements, unless the state in question be one they seek to destroy, such as the USSR, Yugoslavia, Serbia, Sudan, and Russia.

Your honest admission about not being fully up to speed on India shows self-confidence and the possibility of understanding.

For example let’s look at your criteria regarding self-determination:

Self-determination means that minorities have the right to independence, provided
a. they have not shown intent to oppress their own minorities
b. their movements were not created by foreign powers.

According to the above the Kashmir seperatists fail your criteria. The Hindu minority of Kashmir (the indigenous and original inhabitants of Kashmir), have been massacred and driven out of their homeland by Kashmiri seperatist movement. They used a combination murder of Hindu Pandits, rape of young Hindu women and then murdering them and dumping their bodies where people could see them as well as annOuncements from loudspeakers telling the minority to leave or else. There famous video (youtube it) of that darling of the Anglosaxon media, Benazir Bhutto, making a cutting gestures with hands (meaning cut them up/ slaughter them) when in front of a group of Kashmiri separatists for which she received loud cheers (she was referring with words and innuendo to what should be done to the Hindu minority).

The same can be said of the Naga terrorist/seperatist movements, they have massacred minorities repeatedly and they are not supported by the majority of the Naga people.

Just because country A uses certain methods to fight a seperatists, it doesn’t mean India is using those same methods, as avarachan has quite competently pointed about India refusing to use airpower against terrorists due to the risk of killing civilians (this had cost a lot soldiers their lives, but they hold to this policy). And in Kashmir, airpower (helicopters) would be very useful (it isn’t a jungle), but still India has refrained, for decades, from using air power.

Regarding the Naga here their own words from there leaders to the British, in 1929:Before the British Government conquered our country in 1879-80, we were living in a state of intermittent warfare with the Assamese of the Assam valley to the North and West of our country and Manipuris to the South. They never conquered us nor were we subjected to their rules. On the other hand, we were always a terror to these people.

So the nagas have not exactly been just victims but also victimizers towards other tribes and minorities in the region.

I know those officers, we call them traitors. A occupier uses local traitor police to put down their own uprising. Where did I head that before? Germany and Japan occupied countries in WWII? Tell me that the local Indian police did not lift a finger on putting down Indian uprising under British occupation. And because Indian police killed its own people it made British OK to occupy India.

I proposed the argument that you cannot allow self-determination to a nation controlled by thugs or lunatics. It works, to determine whether a minority is responsible enough to have freedom, but only before hostilities; after the war has started, even the victims become thugs, it’s unavoidable. The brutality of guerrillas and self-defense forces cannot be used as an argument that the regime must continue its oppressive rule.

Unfortunately, minorities and border tribes tend to be happier and more peaceful under an imperial regime; democracy may be the deadliest of all political systems of our time.

You are once again making the mistake of applying sweeping generalizations and your ideology to a very specific situation. Without a doubt you are ignorant of the actual situation in India (by your own admission) and in Kashmir. The ethnic cleansing of the indigenous Hindu minority from the Kashmir Valley occurred before the onset of hostilities and military action by Indian govt (in fact it is one of the factors that triggered the military response). Secondly, the Kashmir ‘uprising’ was funded and supported by the ISI as well Western Intelligence. This means that Kashmir situation fails not only your 1st cruteria but your 2nd criteria too. You can’t even live up to your own words. It really demolishes your credibility that despite the fact that the Kashmir Seperatist movement has failed your own criteria for Self-Determination, you can’t even concede your error.

You might be able to have a cavalier attitude towards the Salafist inspired violence committed against Kashmir’s unarmed and defenseless Hindu minority, but thankfully the people who really matter, the Indian people, did not have such a cavalier attitude and firmly put those butchering Islamist terrorists from Pakistani training camps where they belong.

Unlike in your homeland, the people in Kashmir have their own elections and elect their own parties, they are not oppressed. They have not been turned into a minority in their own state like minorities have been in your country. Indian citizens that are from outside of Kashmir are not allowed to buy land in Kashmir, this prevents the ethnic/religious balance in Kashmir from being altered and local Kashmiris being swamped by an influx of population from neighboring states.

Your characterization is as false as the same used by supporters of Jim Crow against the US federal govt when the US supreme court invalidated segregation and Kennedy sent in the national guard to protects the rights of oppressed black minority in the US South, those idiots in the white Southerner segregation movement used the same idiotic argument that the will of the majority (the whites living in the US South) is being suppressed.

China supports anti-Indian insurgents who have camps just a few kilometers into Myanmar. Is it risky for China to do this? Yes. However, China feels that it’s worth taking this risk to weaken India. (This is well known: China has been doing this for decades.)

It should be noted that China takes many risks: its support for Pakistan is incredibly risky for China, given that Pakistani jihadists have ambitions on Central Asia. But China takes this risk nonetheless.

By the way, many people in the Saker Community have a high regard for the Chinese government. I do not: it is making many serious mistakes. Those mistakes will come to light within the next 5-10 years, I think.http://www.futurity.org/china-economy-media-929682/

From what I have read of china’s dealings in other countries were thee is unrest, if anything china will act as mediator rather than take sides. As for business dealings they always deal with whoever has power.
That is what makes this claim of China backing the insurgents or an ethnic group out of place.
The insurgents – is this an ethnic group that overlaps the three borders? I have found no information on it as yet.
With China having a strategic oil pipeline running through the country, US behind the scenes involvement seems very likely.

A bit here from wikipedia on US involvement in Myanmar.

US activities in Burma[edit]
Main article: CIA activities in the Near East, North Africa, South and Southwest Asia
On 10 September 2007, the Burmese Government accused the CIA of assassinating a rebel Karen commander from the Karen National Union who wanted to negotiate with the military government.[38] For background on the conflict, see

In 2011 the Guardian newspaper published WikiLeaks cable information regarding Burma. The cables revealed that the US funded some of the civil society groups in Burma that forced the government to suspend the controversial Chinese Myitsone Dam on the Irrawaddy river.[42]

According to media reports citing documents published by Germany’s Der Spiegel in 2010, the Embassy of the United States in Yangon is the site of an electronic surveillance facility used to monitor telephones and communications networks. The facility is run jointly by the Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) and the National Security Agency (NSA) through a group known as Special Collection Service.[43]

“…the Chinese government… is making many serious mistakes…” What “mistakes” are you talking about?

From your link:

“This doesn’t mean the country will “collapse.” I’m not even sure what people mean when they say that China will collapse. PRC economists talk instead of China entering a middle-income trap in which growth stalls indefinitely—hindered further by the dire demographic situation. This would mean the end of China’s rise in comprehensive national power terms relative to the United States.”

Today’s China rose from the deep poverty of the late ’70s to economic powerhouse today by growing its GDP by ~10% / ann. Lynch’s doubts that this will continue ad infinitum are not controversial, and he points out that a lively, wide-ranging debate “…of exceptionally high quality” is going on within Chinese policy circles to address the implications.
Furthermore, in the last part of the above quote, Lynch seems to assume that [a] the US’ current position as global Hegemon is subject only to a rival power knocking it off its perch, and [b] that China wishes to become global Hegemon itself. Both of these are contentious. If these are indeed his underlying assumptions, the evidence suggests he’s wrong on both counts.

To be sure, there are challenges facing the CPC as follows:
– find ways to spread the wealth through the society more evenly as the growth tapers.
– find / create new customers for its export industries to mitigate the decline in its traditional markets (the West)
– develop sophisticated economic / social / political policies to maintain internal social and political stability (as opposed to simply handing out welfare)
– manage the US’ pathology as its internal contradictions force a retreat from the world economically and politically.

Before the fallacy of “global trade” took over.The US and Europe were able to built their nations into economic giants based on internal consumption.All the Western and Japanese development of the 19th Century (which was what built their standing in the World) started out with their internal markets absorbing their factory products.We seem to have forgotten that today.China and India in particular,between them have around 2.5 billion potential consumers for their industrial output.The key should have been for them to have spurred the rise of their internal markets before trying to dominate World markets.Today,with their populations and trade alliances through BRICS and the EEU.Those countries shouldn’t ever need to worry over selling anything in the West.And with Russia behind them.Between what they themselves have,and Russia’s resources, there is nothing that they should need to buy from the West for survival.One example,today it was announced that Russia surpassed Saudi Arabia has China’s main oil source.When the new pipelines are complete Russia will be able to supply even more oil and gas cheaply and easily to China.And it appears India is heading that way too.

Erebus, the Chinese economic model is based on intellectual-property theft and the low-cost manufacturing of copy-catted items. Obviously, that approach has inherent limitations (quality problems with the copies, the lack of upgrades from the original equipment manufacturer, etc.).

I recommend that you read the following articles regarding the J-11B, the illegal Chinese copy of Russia’s Su-27 fighter jet. Also, please read about the Su-30 MKI, which is the (legally produced) Indian variant of Russia’s Su-30. When the MKI became operational, it was the most advanced fighter jet in the world, bar none.

The linked article references “contradictions” and “serious problems” in the Chinese economic model. No, the article doesn’t spell them out: those issues have been extensively discussed elsewhere, in both the popular and academic press. The foremost problem is China’s attempt to make high-quality items based on intellectual-property theft. As I already stated, this leads to many problems (quality problems with the copies; the lack of upgrades from the original equipment manufacturer; the fact that time, money, and energy has to be spent fixing problems with the copies rather than on developing the next generation of that item; etc.). A good case study regarding this is the J-11B fighter jet. I’ve provided links regarding that.

The fact is, Chinese companies hold meeting with Russian counter part annually on IP, show them what they have. Then Russian companies file claim if they see their IP is used, and Chinese companies then pay them. Last year the payment was over 1 billion. I read this from somewhere a few month ago, so I have no link to offer at this time.

I’ve interacted with Russian analysts, and they’re still angry over what China did with the J-11B (to use one notorious example). Because of that, Russia refuses to sell China its top-tier military technology. Russia is cooperating with China, but not at a high level (diplomatic hype aside). For instance, China’s prototype J-20 stealth fighter jet does make use of Russian technology. However, it’s Russian technology from the 1980’s (the MiG 1.44).

Ok, I was told the Chinese paid IP, however the RF government took the money, not the individual companies. So they bitch any way. I can understand RF engineer’s concern, It seems if RF sold Chinese plane, why not charge the IP transfer at start, because Chinese is going to get bottom of it any way. Let alone no one would sell the most updated tech to outsiders.

However your comments of “the Chinese economic model is based on intellectual-property theft and the low-cost manufacturing of copy-catted items.” does it imply some thing like India is superior because it can not develop its own defense industry?

So you’re justifying theft of Russian IP? Yes that’s going to convince a lot people on this site. Aw it’s no big deal? They’ll get to the bottom of it eventually. And it’s Russia’s fault for not building in the cost of the IP theft in the original contracts with the Chinese? You are kidding right? Supporting your team right or wrong?

As for India’s defense complex, it’s a hodge-podge of technical excellence mixed with corruption and stupidity. The Indians have developed their own R&D capability and therefore have a culture based on original research, they also have shoddy MiC units that rely solely on producing parts based on licensed (paid for not stolen) designs. So their production skills and know how are below par and riddled with bureaucratic sloth and corruption. The best defense systems they produced are those that circumvented the bureacracy and the Ministry of Defense (Brahmos, Su-30Mki, etc).

Without a doubt China has done a much better job in indigenizing their Defense production. And they deserve respect for doing so.

China excels in production know how and processes, due to the enormous amount of capital invested by the Chinese state over the last 2 decades. India needs to work hard to up capacity in this area. China needs to work hard to build up their R&D capacity.

LOL. Do you under stand what I was writing. Chinese paid IP before or after. Where did I imply anything fault of Russian companies? I even said it is understandable that Russian do not want to sell certain system to Chinese. When they sale, they (may) do IP transfer from start any way.

British way shine through, you need to try harder at playing with words against people. I will try harder not give you any thing to even try in future.

I understood perfectly what you wrote and have addressed it in my above post. If you are now backtracking from what you originally wrote then that is good.

You are putting the onus of building the cost of IP into the contract onto the Russians, why? You state that “because the Chinese are going to get to the bottom of it anyway”, implying that the Chinese are going to copy the technology “anyway”.

Actually you are wrong, Russia is selling and developing its latest technology with India in the 5th Gen fighter program, the PAK-FA/FGFA.

They will not do the same with China for obvious reasons. They have stated this openly to the media in recent interviews. Russia shares technology with India (and vis-versa) that it does not with any other, because they share a level of trust that their licensing agreements will be honored by both sides.

I said I understand why they are not selling certain system to China.
A business deal is a business deal. If Russian need to build IP cost into system selling to China, it is obvious their business decision, and Chinese is paying extra money for that privilege. Russian make money, and Chinese gets the goods.

Yes, I did say “because the Chinese are going to get to the bottom of it anyway”. I, as many others, am making assumption that Chinese will trying to learn from the system at hand, will not pass a good learning opportunity. I in may ways not so sure if it is truth, because I read about like everyone else from MSM. Learning is not something to be shamed of. Russian has a very developed military complex, she is source of many lessons I am sure Chinese gladly pay up and go to school at.
I am sure it is win and win for Russian (who make extra money) and Chinese who learn the tech know how.
There is nothing wrong for Russian to team up with India to develop certain systems, but prefer not with China. Russia minds her own national interest, and do.

I respect Russia immensely for her level-headedness, respectfulness, and integrity at this very hard period of the nation. By the way I have same respect for Iran as well…..

You’ve done an excellent job of laying out the facts. It’s interesting how the haters here don’t seem to have to live up to the same standard. I think some of the simplicistic hate spewed against India here (by some commenters and not Author, who wrote a fairly good piece, although I don’t agree with all of it), is due to the burden India must bear for carving out a truly independent path; ie a path that is not fully aligned with Russia’s vision nor that of the West).

Given the size of India, they’re not going to care whether some people want to stay willfully ignorant of the facts and sling mud. However, i’m glad that you’ve set the record straight for the India-lay readers of this site, so that at least they can make their own educated judgement.

Mynmar has been taken over by british and american agents who ,true to firm ,harbour tertprists as their mercenaries to destabilise India and then blame china.
we indians are too stupid not to fall for angloamerican terrorists trap.

@Anonym
That’s a sweeping statement attributing the opinions of one security analyst with that of an entire country. To say that it is entirely the West that is backing all the insurgencies in Burma and NE India and discount the possibility of Chinese involvement with some of the groups (given the substantial stakes the Chinese have in myanmar) is naive and possibly magical thinking. I’m not saying that I know that for a fact, only that it is a possibility that should be considered.

Additionally most of the security establishment in India point the finger to the Anglo alliance, specifically Australia, WRT some of the insurgent groups. So I wouldn’t assume that they are pointing the finger China.

when it comes to disinfo and propaganda, indian media could teach their murikkan counterparts a thing or two !!
viz,
bharats accusation of chinese invasion 1962 turns out to be false,
indian media accused china of the 2001 palace massacre and the 2008 toppling of nepalese mornachy, guess what…nepalese themselves are convinced bharat was behind both machinations. !
indian media constantly screamed about *chinese incursions* into indian territory, but even the pro india bbc called it bs. !
this socalled china’s support for north eastern separatists smacks of more of the same…bs. !
after all, harboring and abetting separatists movements like the dalai clique seem to be the prerogative of *democrazies* like the unitedsnake and its partner india, it’s never been china’s cup of tea !

*fake encounter killings* and *death under custody * are bharat’s fav m.o. in its *wot*, god helps any *terrorist * who falls into the hand of the *authority.*, prolly a fate worst than death !

that *insurgent* who allegedly fingered china as the sponsor of naga militants could very well be doing it under extreme duress.
the veracity of the author’ s anecdotes is highly suspect to begin with, judging from indian media’s penchant for making up stories, not to mention it runs counter to china’s well known non interference policy over the decades.

You can’t answer the question, that in itself affects your credibility.

I saw your original posting that I didn’t think it was worth respond to (because it was riddled with such obvious falsehoods that even a lay reader would see through it). However, this response of yours is truly amazing and seems to in line with the Zaid Hamid school of geopolitical analysis.

According to your views since Tibet was part of the Mongol Empire that included the conquered territories of traditional/actual China under Kublai Khan’s lineage; ie the Yuan Dynasty (aka Eastern Mongol Empire), then by same token, All of Myanmar/Burma should be under Indian rule because Burma was part of Eastern British Empire, ie British India.

Yes, Mongolian had become Chinese after Yuan. Chinese also control Tibet in MIng, Qing dynasty and also it was also under KMT control. The west does not like it only because CPC took over mainland. I suggest you go visit Tibet and XinJiang and see how Chinese treat her minority. For one basic rule, Rape is capital offence for Chinese soldier as well as murder civilians. Chinese also pour money and resource to develop monitor area. One extreme example is $46 Billion to CPEC that help Pakistan and bring prosperity to XinJiang.

You can believe what you want to believe, however, you’re premise does not stand the scrutiny ofhistory and the facts. The analogy I drew is something you cannot address and hence you evade responding to that point.

*According to your views since Tibet was part of the Mongol Empire that included the conquered territories of traditional/actual China under Kublai Khan’s lineage; ie the Yuan Dynasty (aka Eastern Mongol Empire), then by same token, All of Myanmar/Burma should be under Indian rule because Burma was part of Eastern British Empire, ie British India.*

as anon has already pointed out,
since tibet was conquered during the yuan D, it has never existed as an independent nation, so your comparison to myanmar is bogus.

Again Denk your sour grapes anti India views are coming thru loud and clear. Unfortunately, You aren’t convincing anyone of importance or substance, on the contrary you are only demonstrating Avarachan’s point when he refers to India Haters.

Do you really think that the non-facts you’ve posted make one whit of difference? Do you think professions like Andrew Korybko are convinced? Do you think Putin or the Russian government buys into the fantasies that you have posted?

Even President Xi does not care for useless anti-India diatribes (they serve no purpose), which is why he works with India in the AIIB development bank where India is the 2nd largest investor and Russia the 3rd, notice that Pakistan isn’t even on the list. It’s also why China supported India getting the 1st Chairmanship for the New Development Bank (the BRICS alternative to the World Bank).

When I see the Banderastani types spewing fantasies about made-up Russian transgressions I shake my head at the stupidity and futility of those hate-filled underachievers. I’ve run some of the fools comments of these Ukrainian Nationalists by people who are unaware of the Ukraine situation and 9 times out of 10, those whining fantastical Ukrainian comments turns people off and they side with the Russian point of view (without the Russian side having even been presented). Mature and sane people aren’t convinced by miscreance and envy.

From what I’ve seen Russia had drawn closer to India in this crisis and India has grown closer to Russia (India announced joining a free-trade bloc with the Eurasian Union on precisely the day the EU pathetically extended their sanctions on Russia). Meanwhile India’s detractors in the region, Pakistan, continue to sink in a quagmire of salaafist terrorism, corruption, economic backsliding and begging for cash both from the United States and China. This parallels exactly what is happening to Western Ukraine vis a vis Russia.

It was discussed in Andrews article above that terrorists in Pakistan may suffer the same treatment as the 100 terrorists killed in this operation.

Why would it amuse you that that country is such a horrible mess, a vassal state of the US that freely or impotently allows its citizens to be droned to death by foreign powers on its own soil. That it’s leadership will sell anyone out for few USD. That it is state akin to the Banderastan that Saker talks about, where the country is riddled with violent and brainless extremists that undermine their own society in the name of patriotism. That it is a laughstock and humiliated country because of its failings and extreme nationalism (just like western Ukraine). There’s nothing amusing about this, it’s tragic and pathetic.

Is there some particular reason that you object to criticism of Pakistan?

The real trustful fact is that they have the greatest misfortune of being your neighbor. They had to counter you by spending 4% of GDP to defend themselves.

Since I discover potency of Hindu nationalism, I have frequent many of your sites. The comments of Pakistanis are all polite and reasonable, the comments from the greatest democracy are anything but.

I have no desire to tell you why I think you are anything but. I have enough of your twisted way of thinking. It is much better for you to contain yourself in your little region than someday the rest of world have to suffer as your neighbors do. It will be a lot more tragic and Pathetic than it is now.

By the way, I do not remember I have ever reading your masses like this as you are now. Either you hided it well, or Modi stirred up the bottom of your pond.

That statement is reflective of your lack of objectivity and accuracy. It is impossible for all Pakistani comments to be polite and reasonable because like any society they have idiots, morons and simplicistic fools too, as well as normal people. I shouldn’t have point out how absurd your statement is, but apparently you need it spelled out.

You state in ad-hominem:
” I have enough of your twisted way of thinking”.
That does not surprise me since logic and coherent arguments may appear twisted to someone who engages in absolutes when describing human behavior and geopolitics.

Re: “It is much better for you to contain yourself in your little region.”

I think that statement is more applicable to you.

As for your last paragraph, it is so poorly written that it is unintelligible, perhaps you could clarify it.

Strange isn’t it. What does that say about Pakistan and India? To me. It says the people who have internet access, caring about country and regional fairs are reasonable, respectful, and peaceful people. The same class people from India are anything but. Do I need to expand on how I see the future of two country from this……

What was your point? Can you rule Burma because British ruled it for brief period of time? What stop you? Did Burmese chase all of you out once already? Why not try it second time, the poor condition of Burma is temporary, start now before they regain their full strength, and see what will come out of it.

Morons has taken over the civilization where Buddha was born. Where are your wise men, and sages to guide you with a steady hands for a civilization with such a long history? Why your people acting so juvenile and un compassionate? Who in their right mind, let along a descendant of great civilization think nothing but ill wishes to its once compatriots? How did you manage to be nothing but trouble for any one close to you? When did you manage to be so untrustworthy with nothing but big talks and hot air? And stop acting British to all your small neighbors and your minorities.

I believe that you understand that you don’t have rejoinder because you have resorted to juvenile responses such as “Morons have taken over the civilization where Buddha was born”. That reflects your anger and frustration at not being able address the point being placed before.

Can you address the point put before you rather than deflecting and changing the subject? If not then you have conceded the point.

Your coverage of India seems to the take the mainstream media’s narrative. We Indians have been victims of terrorist attacks for decades before the world woke up to the problem. Our security forces have maintained restraint in an excellent fashion. And we do not differentiate (unlike the U.S.A and Pakistan) between good and bad terrorists. We do not arm ‘rebels’ as state policy. That point is completely missed here. And we had a treaty with Myanmar that lets us cross into their border. Not mentioned here. Please find an Indian to write about us! There are certainly many of us around, you don’t need to find a foreigner! :)

One suggestion, you could ask Rakesh Krishnan Simba, he writes for the india russia report website, and other journals.

This piece a factual error. The prime minister’s office in Myanmar confirmed the operation.

It is rich in detail, and Andrew’s geo-political analysis of the implications of India’s North East / Myanmar problems is an eye-opener. An absolute must read if you’re new to the topic. IMHO, well worth reading it twice, or more.

As an alleged Indian Nationalist I only wish your comments were true and not a series of unproven conspiracy theories and links that contain circular logic and opinions posing as facts.

The sad truth is that, uptil now, India’s bureaucracy and government machinery has not possess the alacrity to pull off any of the takeovers you’ve posited (aside from the Sri-Lankan decision to shutdown China’s attempt to setup deep-water shop only 10s of kilometers from India’s shore, that one actually did happen and is provable, and quite frankly it’s exactly what China or Russia would have done in the same circumstances).

The rest of your posting are so over the top that I feel embarrassed for the lack realism they possess.

I mean this sincerely: I wish a lot of what you wrote were true, but unfortunately the Indian State hadn’t demonstrated the will or the execution to do what you have contended. To some of India’s hard liners your accusations would be considered flattering, to the rest of us, they are unrealistic.

Now, the new administration of PM Modi likely has the ability to crush opposition within the subcontinent; Modi has demonstrated a speed a decisiveness only seen when Narasimha Rao and PM Vajpayee were in power. The breakneck speed at which he has implemented changes in the military, intelligence and economic front is surprising even for us (the free trade deal with Eurasian Union was supposed to take 11 months, he announced the decision within 1 month, that was really unexpected). In particular, this new govt is likely to act forcefully against opposition in the subcontinent specifically against the Islamist-Wahaabist elements in Pakistan, but as for all previous administrations taking out anti-Indian forces in the manner you’ve described, that just doesnt seem likely.

*The sad truth is that, uptil now, India’s bureaucracy and government machinery has not possess the alacrity to pull off any of the takeovers you’ve posited (aside from the Sri-Lankan decision to shutdown China’s attempt to setup deep-water shop only 10s of kilometers from India’s shore, that one actually did happen and is provable, and quite frankly it’s exactly what China or Russia would have done in the same circumstances).*

your projection of mindset doesnt count , china has never been known to orchestrate regime change anywhere, certainly not in india, even when bharat has been harboring and abetting the anti beijing dalai clique for decades.
the record speaks for themselves. !

*The rest of your posting are so over the top that I feel embarrassed for the lack realism they possess.*

u’r sounding like the other anon [see below], making bland accusation without any specifiics, can u give an example ?

*I mean this sincerely: I wish a lot of what you wrote were true, but unfortunately the Indian State hadn’t demonstrated the will or the execution to do what you have contended*

lemme get this straight, u wish all that were true, including the charge that nelhi was behind the 2001 palace massacre ?

******************************************************
the other anon,

*Again Denk your sour grapes [sic] anti India views are coming thru loud and clear. Unfortunately, You aren’t convincing anyone of importance or substance, on the contrary you are only demonstrating Avarachan’s point when he refers to India Haters.

Do you really think that the non-facts you’ve posted make one whit of difference?

Do you think professions like Andrew Korybko are convinced? Do you think Putin

or the Russian government buys into the fantasies that you have posted?**

to recap, it all started with avarachans’s fact free claim of beijing’s complicity in indian NE unrest.
here’s my observation…..

+when it comes to disinfo and propaganda, indian media could teach their murikkan counterparts a thing or two !!
viz,
bharats accusation of chinese invasion 1962 turns out to be false,
indian media accused china of the 2001 palace massacre and the 2008 toppling of nepalese mornachy, guess what…nepalese themselves are convinced bharat was behind both machinations. !
indian media constantly screamed about *chinese incursions* into indian territory, but even the pro india bbc called it bs. !
this socalled china’s support for north eastern separatists smacks of more of the same…bs. !+

if only Avarachan would do the same and substantiate his claim .
indian media are rife with such fantasies , imagine, they blame china for support of indian maoists [coz maoists = china lol].
they even accuse nepal of supporting indian maoists ! when its delhi which has been playing a double game in nepal, supporting both sides of the civil war and eventually toppling the pro beijing monarchy with delhi sponsored napalese maoists. !!!

Please type some more keep typing. Note that no one is reading what you’re writing (including me) anymore, I see your name, a snippit of the 1st sentence, and then scroll down to type this response ignoring your futile efforts to fit a square peg into a round hole.

Thanks Denk for your links and helpful information.
It appears that this article has attracted a lot of ” Hurray Indians” who just want to thrash anyone and everyone except for India.
The claim that China’s economic model is based on intellectual property theft and low cost copy catted production is overly simplistic, uneducated, misinformed and illogical.
If that’s how a nation could become the top economic power in the world then a lot of other nations would have achieved similar success.

Re:The claim that China’s economic model is based on intellectual property theft and low cost copy catted production is overly simplistic, uneducated, misinformed and illogical.

I would agree with you that it is simplistic misinformed and potentially illogical. As for your contention that it is uneducated that is just an ad hominem and is gratuitous and personal –>Since only one person made that point: Avarachan.

China’s economic development has occurred due to the focussed and consistent attention of its leadership, cheap internal credit and China’s admirable and correct policy of not compromising their national interest in key areas and temporarily sacrificing lower priority areas. Such as temporarily: converting part of their assets into income, keeping wages low, letting “western” middlemen garner the lions share of the value-add created by the Chinese worker, focussing as much of their initial exports on consumables (which require repeat orders, and do not acquire value in the West), sacrificing environment standards and worker protections. A brilliantly played move by China that uses the greed of elements within the Western establishment (middlemen, retailers and the banks and bond market) in order to maintain access to Western markets and gain access to Western manufacturing knowhow and technical inputs. All the while they steadily continued to move up the value chain building internal know-how and targeting external inputs in technical goods and production machinery for indigenization. They maintained this until they have reached a sufficient economic size that they can no longer be blackmailed by the international order (having crossed the threshold in the last 5 years).

Yes it is true that there huge internal imbalances (such as huge internal debt bubble and bad loans in China’s banks -due their earlier easy credit policies-, their demographic cliff and a price and capacity bloated real estate sector), but they are acutely aware of these problems and are working systematically to soften the blow.

It is irresponsible to take the Chinese and their hard-earned accomplishments lightly and it is self-deluding.

As for the Hurrah Indians characterization it appears that they only rear their heads when bitter hurrah Pakistanis (posing under Turkish names), jingoistic sinosycophants, international malthusian socialists and other like minded hurrah anti-Indians start trolling the comments section of this site whenever an India oriented article is published on this site.

Ironically very few comments critical of India are made here by genuine Chinese people.

When did I ever claim to be Chinese? Read the entire posting again (carefully).

Examine my name you should be able to figure out my name, it isn’t disguised, it is clear, that is of you had knowledge of Chinese. If you can’t figure out my name from the Pinyin than too bad for you.

Can it get any funnier, a Pakistani posing as a Turk (your specific objection is as good as an admission) then posing as a Nepali getting upset and accusing others of posing.

Ok, 3 cents, for loop, or what ever. I requested Saker to delete my posts because there is no reason to say same thing many times.

You are a Indian obviously. because Ironically all comments critical of China are made here by Indian people.

Your comments regarding China is anything but genuine. And your Modi had gall to tell Chinese that our government tell us to hate you. Look at you, you can not even make a genuine complement. Modi could not even act respectful to his host when in Beijing as a guest in China.

Our people read your publications and comments, read about what you have done and how you have done it on internet, all of those tell us your are trouble, and better left alone.

Sure you did, sure you had your comment deleted because “it say same thing many times” (I read the actual comment that was deleted). I really believe you.

So you finally figured out that San Fenqian is transliterated 3 Cents. It took you long enough.

You can spew incoherently about Modi all you want, it is irrelevant. I didn’t vote for the man and I’m not responsible for anything he said or didn’t say (as if I would take your hearsay seriously).

Your characterization that (paraphrasing) that “you people are trouble” is bald faced infantile bigotry (and very funny).

One more thing, don’t even pretend to represent/pose as a representative of the Chinese people they are not jingoistic logically challenged bigots like you have portrayed yourself to be. In most of my dealings they have come across as mature, warm, intelligent, moderate, decent, polite, friendly and not obnoxious. Quite different from my perception of you.

It’s funny that I’ve been attacked by other Indians (ex-friends) in my personal life as being a Sinophile, because I objected to their prejudiced attitudes towards Chinese people and now by an extremist like you of being anti-Chinese…..I must be doing something right.

Quite obviously your dealing with “mature, warm, intelligent, moderate, decent, polite, friendly and not obnoxious” Chinese people has not enable you to make a proper respectful complement about them, let along respect your small, poor neighbors.

That is right, I said you are trouble, trouble to deal with, some one best to stay away with. Some one, on one hand offer/ask friendship, ask for money, next day, trying to counter this so called friend with others. You do not even try to hide it. Your government is not trustworthy, and your people show up everywhere hating and ill wishing Chinese, and Pakistan, or any one you are hating at the time.

A small act of being respectful to your small neighbors, not threaten the poor countries such as Nepal, Myanmar and Pakistan at will, your government stop getting political brownie points with anti China (or which ever neighbor you are not favor at the moment) rhetoric, your media stop publishing anti Chinese propaganda just for the spite of it, will be a good start to change your image.

Yes, before that, you are trouble to stay far away with. Call me whatever name you want. I despise any one who mistreat the poor and weak, and you are that some one.

Do you think I care what you think? You only speak for yourself and only represent yourself. I see you wrote very long response which I didn’t read, good.

It’s a serious question. If you can give me a coherent answer I will give you a respectful response. If you really were Chinese you would have instantly figured out my moniker, the fact that you didn’t well…

Sitemap

Saker Android App

An Android App has been developed by one of our supporters. It is available for download and install by clicking on the Google Play Store Badge above.

All the original content published on this blog is licensed by Saker Analytics, LLC under the Creative Commons CC-BY-SA 4.0 International license (creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0). For permission to re-publish or otherwise use non-original or non-licensed content, please consult the respective source of the content.